Dataset Information

Effect of Risk Mitigation Guidance opioid and stimulant dispensations on mortality and acute care visits during dual public health emergencies: retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the effect of opioid and stimulant Risk Mitigation Guidance (RMG) dispensations on mortality and acute care visits during the dual public health emergencies of overdose and covid-19.

Design

Population based retrospective cohort study.

Setting

British Columbia, Canada.

Participants

5882 people with opioid or stimulant use disorder who received RMG prescriptions for opioids (n=5356) and/or stimulants (n=1061) (535 received both) from 27 March 2020 to 31 August 2021.

Main outcome measures

All cause and overdose specific mortality and acute care visits in the week after RMG opioid or stimulant dispensation. RMG recipients were matched 1:1 with controls through use of high dimensional propensity score matching. Marginal structural models, executed on weekly time steps, were used to measure the effect of dispensations on outcomes.

Results

RMG opioid dispensations of one day or more were associated with reduced all cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 0.60) and overdose related mortality (0.45, 0.27 to 0.75) in the subsequent week. Dispensations of RMG stimulants (≥1 days) were not significantly associated with reduced all cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.50, 0.20 to 1.23) or overdose related mortality (0.53, 0.18 to 1.56). The protective effect of RMG opioid dispensations increased with the number of days the medications were dispensed in a given week. People who received four or more days of RMG opioid dispensations had reduced all cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.09, 0.04 to 0.21) and overdose related mortality (0.11, 0.04 to 0.32) compared with the control group. Opioid RMG dispensations did not significantly modify the odds of all cause or overdose related acute care visits. Dispensations of RMG stimulants were associated with a significant decrease in the odds of acute care visits for any cause but did not affect the odds of overdose related acute care visits.

Conclusions

RMG opioid dispensations were associated with reduced overdose related and all cause mortality among a sample of people with opioid use disorder. Pharmaceutical alternatives to the illegal drug supply are promising interventions to reduce mortality in people with opioid use disorder.

SUBMITTER: Slaunwhite A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10777271 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Risk Mitigation Guidance opioid and stimulant dispensations on mortality and acute care visits during dual public health emergencies: retrospective cohort study.

Slaunwhite Amanda A Min Jeong Eun JE Palis Heather H Urbanoski Karen K Pauly Bernie B Barker Brittany B Crabtree Alexis A Bach Paxton P Krebs Emmanuel E Dale Laura L Meilleur Louise L Nosyk Bohdan B

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20240110

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the effect of opioid and stimulant Risk Mitigation Guidance (RMG) dispensations on mortality and acute care visits during the dual public health emergencies of overdose and covid-19.<h4>Design</h4>Population based retrospective cohort study.<h4>Setting</h4>British Columbia, Canada.<h4>Participants</h4>5882 people with opioid or stimulant use disorder who received RMG prescriptions for opioids (n=5356) and/or stimulants (n=1061) (535 received both) from 27 March 202 ...[more]

PMID: 38199614

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDuring public health emergencies, people with opioid use disorder (PWOUD) may be particularly impacted. Emergent disasters such as the COVID-19 pandemic disrupt already-strained harm reduction efforts and treatment availability. This study aims to answer three research questions. How do public health emergencies impact PWOUD? How can health systems respond to novel public health emergencies to serve PWOUD? How can the results of this scoping review be contextualized to the province of Alberta to inform local stakeholder responses to the pandemic?MethodsWe conducted a scoping review using the 6-stage Arksey and O'Malley framework to analyse early-pandemic and pre-pandemic disaster literature. The results of the scoping review were contextualized to the local pandemic response, through a Nominal Group Technique (NGT) process with frontline providers and stakeholders in Alberta, Canada.ResultsSixty one scientific journal articles and 72 grey literature resources were included after full-text screening. Forty sources pertained to early COVID-19 responses, and 21 focused on OUD treatment during other disasters. PWOUD may be more impacted than the general population by common COVID-19 stressors including loss of income, isolation, lack of rewarding activities, housing instability, as well as fear and anxiety. They may also face unique challenges including threats to drug supplies, stigma, difficulty accessing clean substance use supplies, and closure of substance use treatment centres. All of these impacts put PWOUD at risk of negative outcomes including fatal overdose. Two NGT groups were held. One group (n = 7) represented voices from urban services, and the other (n = 4) Indigenous contexts. Stakeholders suggested that simultaneous attention to multiple crises, with adequate resources to allow attention to both social and health systems issues, can prepare a system to serve PWOUD during disasters.ConclusionThis scoping review and NGT study uncovers how disasters impact PWOUD and offers suggestions for better serving PWOUD.

Project description:BackgroundIn light of the opioid epidemic in the United States, there is growing concern about the use of opioids in Sweden as it may lead to misuse and overuse and, in turn, severe public health problems. However, little is known about the distribution of opioid use across different demographic and socioeconomic dimensions in the Swedish general population. Therefore, we applied an intersectional Multilevel Analysis of Individual Heterogeneity and Discriminatory Accuracy (MAIHDA), to obtain an improved mapping of the risk heterogeneity of and socioeconomic inequalities in opioid prescription receipt.Methods and findingsUsing data from 6,846,106 residents in Sweden aged 18 and above, we constructed 72 intersectional strata from combinations of gender, age, income, cohabitation status, and presence or absence of psychological distress. We modelled the absolute risk (AR) of opioid prescription receipt in a series of multilevel logistic regression models distinguishing between additive and interaction effects. By means of the Variance Partitioning Coefficient (VPC) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), we quantified the discriminatory accuracy (DA) of the intersectional strata for discerning those who received opioid prescriptions from those who did not. The AR of opioid prescription receipt ranged from 2.77% (95% CI 2.69-2.86) among low-income men aged 18-34, living alone, without psychological distress, to 28.25% (95% CI 27.95-28.56) among medium-income women aged 65 and older, living alone, with psychological distress. In a model that conflated both additive and interaction effects, the intersectional strata had a fair DA for discerning opioid users from non-users (VPC = 13.2%, AUC = 0.68). However, in the model that decomposed total effects into additive and interaction effects, the VPC was very low (0.42%) indicating the existence of small interaction effects for a number of the intersectional strata.ConclusionsThe intersectional MAIHDA approach aligns with the aims of precision public health, through improving the evidence base for health policy by increasing understanding of both health inequalities and individual heterogeneity. This approach is particularly relevant for socioeconomically conditioned outcomes such as opioid prescription receipt. We have identified intersections of social position within the Swedish population at greater risk for opioid prescription receipt.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians treating cancer-related pain with opioids regularly encounter nonmedical stimulant use (i.e., methamphetamine, cocaine), yet there is little evidence-based management guidance. The aim of the study is to identify expert consensus on opioid management strategies for an individual with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain with nonmedical stimulant use according to prognosis.MethodsThe authors conducted two modified Delphi panels with palliative care and addiction experts. In Panel A, the patient's prognosis was weeks to months and in Panel B the prognosis was months to years. Experts reviewed, rated, and commented on the case using a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate) and explained their responses. The authors applied the three-step analytical approach outlined in the RAND/UCLA to determine consensus and level of clinical appropriateness of management strategies. To better conceptualize the quantitative results, they thematically analyzed and coded participant comments.ResultsConsensus was achieved for all management strategies. The 120 Experts were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 [78%]), and physicians (115 [96%]). For a patient with cancer-related and nonmedical stimulant use, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis.ConclusionStudy findings provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians managing cancer-related pain in the context of stimulant use and highlight a critical need to develop management strategies to address stimulant use disorder in people with cancer.Plain language summaryAmong palliative care and addiction experts, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering in the context of cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition as a harm reduction measure was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis.

Project description:BackgroundVisits to the emergency department are critical opportunities to engage individuals after an overdose. We sought to estimate and compare the 12-month mortality between persons with visits to the emergency department related to opioid overdose and those with non-overdose-related visits.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Provincial Overdose Cohort, which contains data for patients in British Columbia who had an opioid-related overdose between 2015 and 2017, along with a 20% random sample of BC residents for comparison. We examined all nonfatal visits to the emergency department between Jan. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2016, among persons aged 14 to 74 years and compared the 12-month mortality between those with overdose-related visits and those with non-overdose-related visits. We estimated the hazard ratio for death, with adjustment for age, sex, comorbidity and disposition (discharged or left against medical advice).ResultsWe included 3593 persons with overdose-related visits and 216 453 with non-overdose-related visits to the emergency department. Those with overdose-related visits were younger, were predominantly male and had more mental health conditions. The 12-month crude mortality probability was 5.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7%-6.2%) in this group and 1.7% (95% CI 1.6%-1.8%) among those with non-overdose-related visits. After adjustment, for persons who were discharged, the 12-month mortality hazard was 3.5 (95% CI 3.0-4.2) times higher among those with overdose-related visits than those with non-overdose-related visits. For persons who left against medical advice, the mortality hazard was 7.1 (95% CI 4.0-12.5) times higher among those with opioid overdose.InterpretationAmong persons with overdose-related visits to the emergency department, 12-month mortality was higher than among those with non-overdose-related visits. Overdose-related visits should prompt urgent evidence-based interventions (e.g., take-home naloxone kits, buprenorphine-naloxone induction) to prevent future deaths.

Project description:Background: Stimulant use among individuals with opioid use disorder has recently increased, driven by changes in drug distribution channels. However, our understanding of polysubstance use is often limited by a need to provide targeted treatment to a primary drug of addiction. Yet there is a crucial need to better understand pathways to addiction, and how the use of multiple substances may differ between populations, as well as time periods. Methods: Using a national opioid surveillance system, we analyzed survey data from new entrants to 124 opioid use disorder treatment centers from 2017 to 2020. Age of first use was collected for prescription opioids, illicit opioids, prescription stimulants, crack/cocaine, and methamphetamines. Year of initial use of an opioid or stimulant was calculated and grouped by 5 year blocs, inclusive of initial use starting from 1991 and ending in 2020 (n = 6,048). Results: Lifetime exposure to stimulants was 82.5% among individuals with opioid use disorder. Mean age of initiation increased for all drugs in 2016-2020, in particular prescription opioids (22.3 to 31.8). Stimulants were initiating drugs for a substantial proportion of individuals with opioid use throughout the analyzed time period. Those initiating opioid/stimulant use from 1991 to 1995 had a mean average of 6.8 years between first and second drug exposure, which steadily decreased to 1.5 years between exposures in 2016-2020. Sankey plots depict significantly more drug transitions in those initiating use from 1991 to 2000 (65.1% had at least two drug transitions) compared to 2010-2020 (16.0%). Opioid-stimulant use increased over time among racial/ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, and those with an educational attainment of high school or less. Conclusion: These data highlight not only the substantial prevalence of stimulant use among individuals who develop opioid use disorder, but also the variability through which pathways of use occur. Prevention and intervention efforts need to take into account increasing ages of initial drug exposures, demographic shifts in stimulant-using populations, and more rapid drug transitions between opioid and stimulants. But at a broader level, prevention, harm reduction ideology, and addiction medicine needs to take into account the ubiquity of polysubstance use among individuals with substance use disorders.

Dataset Information

Effect of Risk Mitigation Guidance opioid and stimulant dispensations on mortality and acute care visits during dual public health emergencies: retrospective cohort study.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Effect of Risk Mitigation Guidance opioid and stimulant dispensations on mortality and acute care visits during dual public health emergencies: retrospective cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets